WE'VE MOVED!!

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Men's Rights Myth: False Rape Accusations

Men's Rights Movement Claim: A high percentage -- 40% or more -- of rape accusations are false.

The Facts: This claim is dubious. The studies claiming these high numbers have been debunked. Better studies estimate the rate of false accusations as being in the single digits, generally in a range from 2-8%.

Here are some useful posts and papers on the subject. You'll notice they don't all agree with one another; It's a complicated subject.

The reputable, methodologically sound reviews put the frequency of false reports in the single-digit percentages. There are people who, for propaganda reasons, keep saying that the incidence of false reports is much higher. They create these figures with biased reviews or intellectually dishonest mislabeling. ... A new study ... based on a review of every single rape allegation made to a US university police department — the study does not disclose which school — over a ten year period. The result: 5.9 percent false allegations.

Eugene Kanin famously found that 41%, or perhaps 50%, of rapes reported to police are false. Kanin's study is both badly designed and unverifiable; more reliable studies have found that between 2% and 8% of rapes reported to police are false reports.

In the research literature, estimates for the percentage of sexual assault reports that are false have varied widely, virtually across the entire possible spectrum. For example, a very comprehensive review article documented estimates from 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, very few of these estimates are based on research that could be considered credible. Most are reported without the kind of information that would be needed to evaluate their reliability and validity. A few are little more than published opinions, based either on personal experience or a non-systematic review (e.g. of police files, interviews with police investigators, or other information with unknown reliability and validity).

The paper reviews recent research and notes that the most credible studies find "the rate of false reporting for sexual assault is in the range of 2-8%."

NOTE: the link to the study on abyss2hope is broken. This one works. (It's a pdf.)

[I]sn't the rate of false rape charges an empirical question, with a specific answer that isn't vulnerable to ideological twisting? Yes and no. There has been a burst of research on this subject. Some of it is careful, but much of it is questionable. While most of the good studies converge at a rate of about 8 percent to 10 percent for false rape charges, the literature isn't quite definitive enough to stamp out the far higher estimates.

Myth: Women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence and rape, including to gain advantage in family law cases. And women use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children.

Facts: The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation. Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims. Rates of false accusations of rape are very low. Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort. Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

Note: I think this paper lowballs the estimate of false rape accusations. See the YesMeansYes article above for what I think is a more reasonable take.

Myth: Women routinely make false accusations of child abuse or domestic violence to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.

Facts: Allegations of child abuse are rare. False allegations are rare; False allegations are made by fathers and mothers at equal rates; The child abuse often takes place in families where there is also domestic violence; Allegations of child abuse rarely result in the denial of parental contact.

An article in the British magazine New Statesman, by Joanna Bourke, Professor of History at Birkbeck and author of Rape: A History from the 1860s to the Present (Virago, 2007). Excerpt:

[W]hat is the risk of an accused man being falsely accused of rape? Popular prejudices estimate that around half of rape victims are lying, but a major Home Office research project in 2000-2003 concluded that only three per cent of rape allegations were false. Indeed, contrary to the notion that men are at risk of being falsely accused, it is much more common for actual rapists to get away with their actions. Around four-fifths of rapes are never reported to the police. And only five per cent of rapes reported to the police ever end in a conviction. This is the lowest attrition rate of any country in Europe, except for Ireland.

None of this is to say that people aren't falsely accused -- of rape, and of other crimes -- or falsely convicted. They are, and it's a tragedy. Here are two groups that advocate for the the falsely accused and falsely convicted:

At the end of the day, if 40% of rape accusers recanted, said they made a false complaint and state what motivated them to do it in a number of different studies and police stations all over the world estimate similar rates, I'll be going with 40%.

Also, false accusations or the threat of them are a common enough tactic for abusive women.

Falsely accused the man of hitting or beating her – 67.2% of menFiled a restraining order against him under false pretenses – 38.7%Falsely accused them of physically abusing the children – 48.9%Falsely accused by their partners of sexually abusing the children – 15.4%

In addition, 3.9% of female batterers threatened to make a false accusation. Two men wrote:

She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we work together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them.She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our daughter, if that helps her win custody.”http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Hin…

Uhm, sorry, but the study I came across was conducted at an air-force base.

It concluded that 60% of rape-claims were false.

It does not seem to me like the BLOGS you list above are in any way credible.

Since when are BLOGS credible in the first place - unless they actually SITE proper research or studies...

If those BLOGS you list did that - why did you link to the blogs, instead of siting the studies that they site?

http://www.falserape.net/falserapeafa.htm

There is the actual study. It sites the number of cases that were examined, it is not some hot-headed person griping, or siting a book that is speculation etc... It is actual research, and the criteria for what constitutes a FALSE ACCUSATION is very clear - the alleged victim admitting it was a HOAX.

Also, the pandagon.net link - that is just somebody rambling. I did not see any research they sited. All they did was site news articles or books that are just speculatory. The articles themselves did not site any research...

I could easily write a bit on my blog entitled, "100% of rape claims are false - women never get raped". It does not mean that it is in anyway truthful. Only a fool would link to it as a reference...

Why is it that these so-called "more reputable" government studies put the percentage of false rape allegations in the single digits, and yet juries put the number of rape convictions in the single digits (that is, in Europe; in the U.S. and Canada the conviction rate for rape is in the teens)? Just because the government doesn't recognize a particular allegation as fabricated doesn't mean that it wasn't. Therefore, they're probably low-balling the true number of false allegations. How credible can the government's low figure be if it ideologically assumes that beyond its singe-digit percentage of false allegations, somehow 100% of the remaining rape cases are genuine rapes and accurate allegations? In the U.S., 85% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction. In Sweden, 99% of rape cases fail to result in a conviction.

Source:"Cross National Studies in Crime and Justice"Bureau of Justice StatisticsSeptember 2004, NCJ 200988Edited by David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, and Michael Tonryhttp://www.dvstats.org/pdf/rape/farrington-langan-tonry-2004.pdf

A couple of questions for the feminists here. Let's for the sake of argument assume that your claim that merely 2 percent of rape claims are false is correct. Just for argument's sake.

1. What protections and or laws have feminists tried to legislate for, not say they agree with, or claim they would be for, but ACTUALLY pushed for in order to protect this 2% from being falsely imprisoned? Why do feminists seem to think that it is okay that these 2% go to prison?

2. Specifically, give me a number of seconds or days or hours or years, that a woman who does make a false rape claim should get in prison.

3. If rape is really just about power, why are most rapes of women in their child bearing/fertile age? Please don't give me some story about a man who raped an 80 year old, I am talking overall trends.

4. If women are truly raped in these ridiculously high numbers, then doesn't it suggest that woman need to change their behavior, ie, dress, excess drinking in order to prevent this?

Scare crow. it would help if you actually read 1) my post and 2) the articles linked to in my post before making comments on 1) my post and 2) the articles linked to in my post.

The posts I link to cite and provide links to actual studies. Several of them make specific reference to the McDowell (air force) study. Your link to the study is not actually a link to the study, but to people talking about the study. The study is not available online (I've looked). If you have found it online, please post a link.

I will add a link to the Kanin study.

John, I will respond to your comment once I have a chance to look over the study you reference. May not be right away.

1. Most rapists are never jailed for their crimes. What protections and or laws have MRAs tried to legislate for, not say they agree with, or claim they would be for, but ACTUALLY pushed for in order to make sure these rapists are punished for their crimes? Why do MRAs seem to think that it is okay that most rapes go unpunished?

Actually David, the False Rape Society that you put on your enemies list, earning yourself a massive quantity of douchebag points in the process, gave a very lucid answer to your question a few months ago.

"2. Specifically, give me a number of seconds or days or hours or years, that a woman who does make a false rape claim should get in prison."

"2) No. Complicated issue. Will discuss in future post."

Not a complicated issue at all, in fact I'll give my own answer to that right now:

The main objection to harsh punishments for false accusers is that it makes them unlikely to come forward. I, however, have come up with a simple system to punish false accusers effectively while also leaving them with a solid incentive to recant their accusations.

Anyone who falsely accuses anyone of a crime (not just rape) can voluntarily come forward to confess their false accusation at any time between when they made it and when/if they are formally charged with making it. If they confess, they are sentenced to a certain multiple of the number of days that elapsed since they made the false accusation, say 2x or 3x, and are put on an internal false accusers registry which is accessible to law enforcement personnel but not to the public. This gives the false accuser a strong incentive to recant their accusation sooner rather than later and avoid a long prison sentence, and this in turn also spares the falsely accused from a lot of anguish.

On the other hand, if the false accuser never comes forward and later on the police figure out that he/she fabricated the whole thing, they can formally charge that person and it is then too late to confess except in the form of a guilty plea. If the false accuser pleads not guilty, then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant KNOWINGLY made a false accusation.

Upon conviction, the false accuser faces the same sentencing guidelines as are in place for the crime for which he/she made the false accusation, but in addition to having to serve this sentence the false accuser is also placed on a PUBLIC false accuser registry so that everyone can be aware of the danger this person poses to their freedom and reputation.

Proof needed! Point me to objective, credible evidence of just a single example (let alone "most") in which someone was convicted of a rape charge in court, sentenced to jail, and yet was nevertheless released free. One example will satisfy me for now... Just name a single case. One. Unless, of course, your feminist ideology produced that bogus figure -- in which case please just admit to that and eat some humble pie right here in the comments section of your own blog.

Admit it, David. You made the assumption that there is an epidemic of unpunished rapes because feminists have done surveys in which the survey respondents claim to have been raped but never reported it, or did report it but the suspect was never convicted. These surveys do not prove guilt, nor do they prove that a rape even occurred in the first place.

Even if evidence indicates that a rape occurred and formal criminal charges are filed, remember that the accused pleads not guilty. Why should the accuser's word have any more weight than the word of the accused, if you believe in a just society? In a just society, we don't throw people in jail unless they have been determined to have violated the law after receiving due process.

"3. If rape is really just about power, why are most rapes of women in their child bearing/fertile age? Please don't give me some story about a man who raped an 80 year old, I am talking overall trends."

Overall trends? Like women being the majority of rape victims? (eye rolls)

You MRAs engage in such mind boggling doublethink sometimes... or rather all the time.

I'd like to point out a major fallacy with thinking that x% represents number of convicted rapes that are false accusation cases because in either case - whether looking at the 2-8% cases or Kanin's 40%, those cases never go to trial. In fact, take for instance, the study in one of the sites:http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/false-rape-allegations-are-rare/5.9% - found to be false44% - no disciplinary action14% - not sufficient to continue processing35.3% - went to case proceeding

Then that means only 35.3% of cases even went to disciplinary action (by the uni or by police trial) - any rape convictions could only have come from that pool of 35.3%. Assuming that 5.9% of rape convictions are false, as one commentor does, is pure BS then. Even if we accepted Kanin's study at face value with the 40% (which I of course, do not), then ~25% of real rapes weren't even taken to further action. This is almost 5x the number of proven false allegations (5.9%). Or if you accept that only 5.9% were actually false, then ~59% of rapes aren't prosecuted, 10x the number of proven false allegations at 5.9%.

And of course, that's only taking into account reported rapes.

Of course there are flaws in this argument. (I.e. you can't assume that the total of the 40% would be in the non-prosecuted 64%) But, given that that 35.3% would most likely have evidence to go to further prosecution, it's a reasonable argument to make.

Also, another huge mistake is conflating false accusations with wrongful accusations, which is commonly done.

As abyss2hope points out several times, the only way to prevent false/wrongful convictions as well as ensure rightful convictions is proper investigation of the rape claim.

@John DiasFeminists like David think that their feelings are more important than your life. That's what those "take back the night" rallies are all about - all men may be more likely to be assaulted and murdered by a stranger, but some women are afraid of the dark. Guess who feminists are more worried about?

Note to say that there are no cases of false or wrongful convictions; there certainly are. But we just don't know what the stats on that are and they can't be extrapolated from % false rape allegations as many MRAs erroneously suggest.

How do you know this? Do you have a vast network of hidden cameras that record every location where a rape could possible take place, and do you then compare the total number of rapes recorded to the number of reports made? I ask because that's about the only method that comes to mind by which you could make such a claim without talking out of your ass.

"As abyss2hope points out several times, the only way to prevent false/wrongful convictions as well as ensure rightful convictions is proper investigation of the rape claim."

The only way?

1. More prosecutorial discretion:If you want to increase the conviction rate for rape from its current 15% (of all accusations, not just those that go to trial) to a higher percentage, then prosecutors should exercise greater discretion before filing charges "just in case." This would mean NOT formally charging as many people as possible, and that decision would be the just outcome of a thorough police investigation which might not produce enough evidence to issue an indictment (maybe because the accused is innocent, or because the accuser was never even victimized).

2. Restore due process for defendants in rape trials:Allow due process protections for defendants in rape cases, such as being able to acknowledge a pattern of false allegations in the accuser's past (some "rape shield laws" prohibit this).

3. More "Wait for the Verdict" Attitudes:Culturally-speaking, don't form conclusions of guilt in the absence of due process or a jury verdict. We saw that the Duke lacrosse team was skewered by the feminists on their college campus even when there was compelling videotaped surveillance footage that showed that the accused were not at the scene of the alleged crime at the time it was reported to have occurred. Nevertheless, they were roundly condemned as monsters, providing them with the justification to sue for damages. This environment of condemnation provided the impetus for the prosecutor (Nifong) to withhold evidence, a blatant crime and an injustice, for which he was disbarred and discredited.

"But we just don't know what the stats on that are and they can't be extrapolated from % false rape allegations as many MRAs erroneously suggest."

Feminists (including feminists who are writing reports for the government) claim that the rate of false allegations is in the "single digits," as David suggests. There is simply no way to extrapolate from solely the most obvious fabrications that these are the only false allegations out there, and yet feminists make the erroneous claim anyway that false allegations are in the single digits. It is not erroneous to use logic to reject such erroneous feminist dogma.

1. What protections and or laws have feminists tried to legislate for, not say they agree with, or claim they would be for, but ACTUALLY pushed for in order to protect this 2% from being falsely imprisoned? Why do feminists seem to think that it is okay that these 2% go to prison?

It is not good that innocent people are convicted. However, every system will have two types of error: falses positives and false negatives. There is nothing you can do to eliminate either type of error from the system, but you can push the system towards one type of error and a way from the other. In the case of criminal justice, we want to push away from false positives and towards false negatives. This is why we have the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" while in civil cases the standard for truth is "clear and convincing evidence" or "preponderance of the evidence."

One thing that will help lower the rate of false convictions is repeal of drug laws. The criminal justice system is clogged with drug cases, and it is hurting the efficacy of the system in general.

Another is better training and police procedures (which would also improve if the police were not so overwhelmed with the war on drugs). Many false convictions stem not from false accusation, but from prosecution of the wrong man. This can be the result of sloppy police work, where police focus on or even frame one suspect they "know" is guilty in order to push the investigation through. Poor line ups also lead to more false convictions. A traumatized victim is subject to error of memory, and is extremely suggestible. If police show the victim a single photo or person and say "was this the man?" the victim can become convinced it was, replacing the face in his/her memory with that of the man.

2. Specifically, give me a number of seconds or days or hours or years, that a woman who does make a false rape claim should get in prison.

Sentencing must be determined on a case by case basis based on: 1. The circumstances of the crime. 2. The criminals prior convictions. 3. Harm to the victim. Rigid sentencing guidelines have caused serious problems throughout the criminal justice system.

False report of any crime is a crime.

3. If rape is really just about power, why are most rapes of women in their child bearing/fertile age? Please don't give me some story about a man who raped an 80 year old, I am talking overall trends.

Rape is a violent crime committed for a variety of reasons. Sometimes power is involved.

4. If women are truly raped in these ridiculously high numbers, then doesn't it suggest that woman need to change their behavior, ie, dress, excess drinking in order to prevent this?

No, the fact that women are raped in no way suggests that women are at fault for being raped. Men are much more likely to be victims of assault: that does not mean the assault is the fault of the victim due to some sort of typical male behavior.

The arrest rate? This is your evidence that rape occurred, and that the accused was in fact the perpetrator? We have a thing in this country called "probable cause" which prohibits someone from being arrested in an effort to preserve the rights of the innocent.

What next, are you going to point me to an article on "Alas, a blog?" How about that scion of rhetorical caution, Amanda Marcotte?

"If you have a study that suggests that the overwhelming majority of these reported rapes are simply imaginary, let's see it."

If there was a rape, then investigate it. If there is a suspect, then investigate the suspect. If the evidence reinforces the veracity of the allegation, then file an indictment. If a jury agrees with the prosecutor, then carry out the sentence. But don't tell me that the absence of an arrest is necessarily proof that an injustice occurred. Am I now supposed to produce some sort study "proving innocence?" Proving a negative? To do that, we would need to become a surveillance society, videotaping everyone in all places and at all times, whether they are alone, in company, in a consensual sexual encounter, or in a non-consensual sexual encounter. You sure have a lot of nerve to demand this of me, rather than to acknowledge the perfectly reasonable assertion that a significant portion of rape allegations are completely without the necessary foundation to justify incarcerating a human being.

wtf are you talking about? In what fucked up universe does the fact only 35.3% of rapes (in the specific study) went to further prosecution suggest to you that currently prosecuters are not "exercising discretion"??? Especially if it means 59% of rapes are not prosecuted in any way at all.

The only way to increase number of actual rapes being prosecuted and convicted and decrease the number of false convictions IS proper rape investigations by police, not dismissal of the victim as commonly done. Take the example of one of Russell William's rape victims, Laurie Massicote:

"Out of the respect of the deceased,I will not even attempt to be heard @ this time, submit my impact statement, nor show my face or presence in that court in Belleville since my regretful appearance Monday A.M., when me & my family literally fled that court house @ 11:20, the 1st possible dignified break after hearing THE GUILTY PLEA on all counts with the sexual assaults being blended with the other less serious, none the less disturbing home invasions. I feel that there is a time & place for everything & it is my belief for the living DEAD and their families. Call me over sensitive but those are my true feelings on how this case is being conducted as a survivor of his Hanois (sic) violent acts. So be it! I once again feel used & disrespected by the Crown & the police.

I feel liked chopped liver & I can’t even comprehend how the little one is feeling. Now if I could get a message out to the masses it would be-if you survive a violent act of sex don’t report it, just run for cover & find your own protection minus the police & the system they represent."

She was dismissed by the police. Now, after two women were brutally raped and murdered, Lt. Comeau, and Jessica Lloyd, Russell Williams is finally in jail.

Engaging in victim-blaming isn't going to do anything but make true victims into criminals for something the rapist did, and put more rapists on the street. Hence shield laws to protect those victims from said victim-blaming.

And how many times are genuine rape cases dismissed because of "forming conclusions" which incidently, is EXACTLY what you advocate with revoking shield laws, and allowing victims to be put on trial when they're not the accused. (If the accused is suspected of lying, then the allegation should be met in a SEPARATE trial where the rape victim is the defendant, and enjoys her/his right of being assumed innocent before proven guilty vs. automatically assumed guilty as you MRAs would like.)

So what's the deal then, it's only okay when it works in men's favour? Fucking hypocrite. I'm getting really disgusted of you MRAs talking out of both sides of your mouth - why don't you try to review the obvious clear double standards in your arguments?

I already cited a study earlier in this thread -- a government study -- which revealed that between 85 and 99 percent of rape cases fail to reach a conviction. This means that when they were properly investigated, there may not have been sufficient evidence to make an arrest or to issue an indictment. It also means that a portion of the cases that went to trial failed to reach a guilty verdict. Does it not occur to you that the insufficient evidence may in fact point to an epidemic of false allegations? It should be harder to convict an innocent defendant, precisely because the lack of evidence points to their innocence! In my state (California), however, feminists have addressed this by making it legal for a mere accusation to be all that is necessary to (A) arrest, (B) indict, and (C) convict a suspect of the crime of rape. So on the one extreme, the low conviction rate for rape indicates too many innocent defendants are getting caught up in the Web of accusation. On the other extreme, those defendants who do go all the way to trial are there precisely because the laws have been changed to lower the legal threshold to convict -- and still juries see through the ruse and acquit the defendant.

Please spare me your holier-than-thou invective. You're an enemy of justice if you want even more people to be convicted based on a requirement of even less evidence.

"Feminists (including feminists who are writing reports for the government) claim that the rate of false allegations is in the "single digits," as David suggests. There is simply no way to extrapolate from solely the most obvious fabrications that these are the only false allegations out there, and yet feminists make the erroneous claim anyway that false allegations are in the single digits. It is not erroneous to use logic to reject such erroneous feminist dogma. "

Actually, if you'd read the study, you'd be able to answer your own question. To bad you're too lazy to bother. It went by the specific legal definition for being a false allegation. But the majority of cases (59%) didn't go to further prosecution, only those where there was sufficient evidence to proceed.

Even if you accept Kanin's study that 40% of rapes allegations are false, there is still a gaping hole between rapes occured and rapes prosecuted.

"Even if you accept Kanin's study that 40% of rapes allegations are false, there is still a gaping hole between rapes occured and rapes prosecuted."

1. Kanin's study revealed that a significant portion of the rape allegations in his sample were fabricated. In his sample. Let's do more such studies, and ask accusers after the statute of limitations for illegally making false statements has expired, and let's find out just how many recantations are made. To do so would require a complete and utter rejection of feminist political correctness, which inhibits further objective inquiry.

2. If there's a "gaping hole" between rapes occurred and rapes prosecuted, as you claim, how do you know this? What crystal ball do you have which incontrovertibly demonstrates that rapes are going unpunished? What credible studies indicate a large portion of suspected perpetrators recanting their assertions of innocence?

"Actually, if you'd read the study, you'd be able to answer your own question. To bad you're too lazy to bother. It went by the specific legal definition for being a false allegation. But the majority of cases (59%) didn't go to further prosecution, only those where there was sufficient evidence to proceed."

You think that I was "too lazy" to read the study that I cited? You obviously don't know me. I read the studies that I cite. And the information that I pointed out from the study that I cited is reflected in that study just as I cited it. Were you too lazy to read the conclusion that I made because of the data from that study?

85-99 percent of rape allegations (which had to have been investigated on some level in order to be counted in a government report as allegations) fail to reach a conviction. That fact is borne out in the report that I cited. The report does use its own definition for fabricated allegation, and I don't dispute that (nor have I so far in this thread, which you should have known if you were paying attention). But just because they didn't identify a higher number of fabricated allegations doesn't mean that the fabricated allegations, or inaccurate-but-sincere allegations, don't exist in the larger percentage of cases that were investigated but not deemed fabricated.

Yes, I did read the study. I do read all of the studies that I cite. I also contact the study authors and even have met a few of them in person, in order to understand the study's findings more thoroughly. You should consider exercising greater discretion before making an unproven allegation like that. Of course, you must think that you were right to say I lazily ignored the study that I cited, merely because you were pointing the accusing finger in my direction. In my opinion, it does reflect your mentality insofar as the veracity of rape allegations in general are concerned.

"I don't doubt that. But you dismiss those which disagree with your ideology, and ignore the methodological flaws of those that you do decide to believe -- like Kanin's."

Would you care to point out the methodological flaws in Kanin's study for the first time so far, David? All you have said about that study is that it is "methodologically flawed," and linked to Amptoons (a feminist Web site) and other feminists as support. You yourself haven't explored the supposed methodological flaws of Kanin's study or any study about rape. It's as though you haven't read the studies which you criticize as unsound; if you have read them, then why do you let your cheering squad do your talking for you?

And you accuse me of dismissing studies which "disagree with [my] ideology?" Please point out how I have disagreed with credible and methodologically sound studies! Is my adherence to the scientific method somehow methodologically "unsound" whenever it disconfirms the ideology of feminism? It seems to me that you believe so. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

1. Most rapists are never jailed for their crimes. What protections and or laws have MRAs tried to legislate for, not say they agree with, or claim they would be for, but ACTUALLY pushed for in order to make sure these rapists are punished for their crimes? Why do MRAs seem to think that it is okay that most rapes go unpunished?"

This seems like spin and not an honest attempt to answer or rebut, and your premise about most rapist never being punished for their crimes if faulty, IMHO.

However, to answer the meat of your question regarding MRA'S pushing for more laws that punish rapists the answer is most do not. There are no laws or protections that are pushed for by MRA'S, that I know of, to ensure that rapists are punished for their crimes. The reason for this is that most rapists are punished if the crime is reported. Not much more than that can be done without leaning heavily to a standard of guilty until proven innocent.

Remember the MRM is a movement about, in part, responding to feminst oversteps. Like the one here which claims that the current standards of evidence are not sufficient, so a new standard based on soley a woman's word should replace the old standards. People used to have the right to face their accuser, but feminsts have stopped that in the name of helping women. Any more legal steps in the direction that feminist want threatens to (if it hasn't already) completely subvert objective justice. The law should not be "trust women," it should trust evidence.

You MRAs engage in such mind boggling doublethink sometimes... or rather all the time."

What doublethink? This portion of you post makes no sense to me. Or is this just snark in lieu of a cogent argument?

I will ignore the statistics portion of you post because it will just devolve into a statistic war with you claiming my side's facts are BS and vice versa. My question to you is based on your statement here:

My take is next to nothing. If feminists want to truly stop rape or more realisticly reduce rape, as stopping it is not possible, and not just bash men, then they should try to encourage behaviors that do not put women at risk, instead of demanding the justice system become an evidence free zone.

By feminists supporting obviously false rape claims, ie Duke, it tends to make men cynical about the legitimate rapes. In other words you are defeating your own cause.

there would be no studies recording high %'s of women recanting and admitting that the accusation was false, no large movement, containing may victims of false accusations advocating for the rights of the falsely accused, no statements from the police in the media about false reporting epidemics, no studies showing that its a common tactic for abusive women to use or threaten to use against their partner, no perception that a lot of accusations are false.

Of course, feminists magical thinking explains all this away as something akin to the devil deceiving us.

Feminist rape rape propaganda is responsible for the myth that the conviction rate for rape is lower than that for other crimes, they measure the attrition rate against the conviction rate and then measure that against the conviction rates of crime that actually go to trial which effectually tells rape victims that there is little point in perusing justice which in turn increases the ratio of false reports v's genuine reports in the system.

Feminist rape myth is responsible for drink spiking hysteria, no study has shown drink spiking to be close to a significant problem or trend with the overwhelming majority of women reporting having been spikes showing nothing more than the alcohol and drugs that they had taken themselves.

Sandy thank you for your response. I agree with most of it espeically the point about drug laws and better training for police. However there are a couple of points of disagreement I have with you.

Firstly, where you said: "Sentencing must be determined on a case by case basis based on: 1. The circumstances of the crime. 2. The criminals prior convictions. 3. Harm to the victim. Rigid sentencing guidelines have caused serious problems throughout the criminal justice system."

I realize the damage rigid sentencing has done, but I also worry that in this scenario people who make false rape claims will be given a slap on the wrist rather than a legitimate sentence that deters other people from doing the same.

Secondly, you state: "Rape is a violent crime committed for a variety of reasons. Sometimes power is involved."

I agree with this whole heartedly. I only wish the memo would get to the many feminists who constantly scream rape is about power, and who miss that there are other factors.

Lastly, you state this: "No, the fact that women are raped in no way suggests that women are at fault for being raped. Men are much more likely to be victims of assault: that does not mean the assault is the fault of the victim due to some sort of typical male behavior."

I'm not saying at fault, but engaging in activity which raises probability of being seen as a target. I could walk through a tough neighborhood at night, drunk, with $100 bills falling out of my pockets and screaming "Gang members are all punks!" and if I were mugged I would not be at fault, the people who mugged me should be punished, but at the same time, a better course of action should be suggested to me.

Sandy it doesn't appear that that women are more likely to by victimized by sex crime.

The FBI report that 30% of rapes are of males.Studies show that 1 in 6 boys have been raped. Self reporting studies show that men and women are raped in roughly equal numbers.The available information shows female sex abuses exist in relevant numbers too (not that the sex of the perp. should in anyway prejudice the victim in the first place, but it does in the minds of feminists)

@John Dias, you have absolutely no understanding of how the US legal system works, do you?

1) US prosecutors have wide prosecutorial discretion (you claimed to be living CA, so I am addressing the US). In most districts, the only thing preventing a prosecutor from just not taking any cases to trial is being voted out of office. The US has far more prosecutorial discretion than other developed countries, so, if your notion were true, the US should be seeing the least trials in this matter.

2)The high burden of proof in the US criminal system is designed to make convictions hard. The vast majority of cases taken to criminal trial do not result in conviction. A criminal trial jury does not find the defendent innocent, it finds that the state has failed to show its claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Failing to convict does not demonstrate that either a victim lied, policer officer did an improper investigation, etc., it just means that the jury thought the prosecutor did not prove all of the elements of the crime BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This is a system specifically designed to prioritize minimizing false convictions over ensuring jailing of actual criminals.

3)The rates of rape victims who have been successfully criminally charged for false reporting is incredibly low as well, as is the rate of victims loosing civil case which have a much lower burden of proof.

4) Defendents have no legal burden in criminal cases, ever, under the US system. A person accused of rape criminally does not have to show that they did not commit a rape. They do not have to show anything. If the jury thinks the prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, has not met his burden, then the defendent wins, even if they have not put on any case at all. It is, in fact, permissible for the defense to not put on a case in chief at all (it does not usually happen, because they often want to try to further contradict the prosecutor's evidence or experts).

5) Due Process still applies in rape cases, as in all criminal cases. Rape Sheild laws do not violate this, they simply change the presumption regarding relevance with regards to the victim's sexual history. There are rules about what evidence is permissible in a trial. One of those rules says that all evidence has to be relevant. Another says that the evidence may not be substantially more prejudicial than probative. What rape shield laws do is count the victim's past sexual history as automatically not relevant and automatically more prejudicial than probative unless the defense can show otherwise. All the defendent has to do is show the judge that the specific instance in the victim's past is stronger as evidence than it is at unfairly prejudicing the jury. Guess what, all other evidence has to meet this standard too, including evidence from other witnesses. Rape sheild laws exist to fix a problem with evidentiary rules being underapplied in regards to certain victims, most of them do not actually impose a higher burden than a non-biased or federal court would be imposing to begin with. The defendant has even more protection against mentioning their past. Even if the defendent had been convicted of rape before, this would often not be allowed in court. The laws defending the defendent's past from scrutiny are far stricter than any rape sheild laws.

BTW, here in Ireland the all female rape and sexual assault task force was disbanded because they were answering a ridiculously high number of false accusations.

Here is some go info from the UK on how they make it appear as if rape have a poor conviction rate.

How the panic over rape was orchestratedTAGS: VIOLENCE, HOME OFFICE, CRIMEFor years the Home Office and the former Lord Chancellor’s Department have misled the media about rape statistics – and allowed the media to misinform the public.Anxiety has grown as a result of the apparent increase in rape offences and the inability to successfully prosecute offenders. Women have been needlessly alarmed for their safety, when the actual threat is much smaller than has been pretended.

Congratulations, therefore, to the Radio 4 programme More or Less and its reporter Ruth Alexander, who have put into the public domain what some advisers engaged by Whitehall committees have known for some time.

This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda.

Since 1999 the Home Office has known that its methods for calculating rape convictions are wrong. The real conviction rate is not the publicly broadcast 10 per cent but closer to 50 per cent (it varies slightly from year to year). In a Minority Report (1) which I wrote for a Home Office committee in 2000 but which advisers refused to forward to ministers who were then actively considering new rape legislation, the HO were told that they were confusing ‘attrition’ rates with ‘conviction’ rates.

The attrition rate refers to the number of convictions secured compared with the number of that particular crime reported to the police (it must be noted that a crime that is ‘reported’ does not automatically imply that the crime actually took place). The conviction rate refers to the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence.

Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. Why? The question is best addressed to Betty Moxon who, in 2000, was head of the Sex Offenders Review Team (SORT) for whom I wrote the minority report.

In the most recent edition of More or Less, broadcast last Friday and still available as a podcast, Ruth Alexander questioned why rape has been made an exception. Referring to a new report soon to be published by London Metropolitan University she said it claimed that Britain had the worst record in Europe for rape convictions. Over recent years, she said, the report showed that the conviction rate had fallen from 10 per cent to 6.5 per cent.

DarkSideCat said... @John Dias, you have absolutely no understanding of how the US legal system works, do you?

About the same, what DarkSideCat is asking me all the time...

However DarkSideCat's explications are not complete, as they are missing to mention legal fees. Legal fees play a highly important part of the US-legal system. It is the most expensive legal system in this world.

Women claiming to be raped (whatever 'rape' might mean in USA) will get assistance free of charge, while accused men find their accounts being locked, might find themselves in jail and have seriously problems to defend themselves.

If you look through cases of the Innocent Project, you will find men convicted of rape, for a crime they did not commit. Most of these men were clearly indigent when convicted and unable to continue to defend themselves.

Who pays for your lawyers and experts to prove that you are innocent and these allegations against you are wrong?

The Duke case is estimated with USD 5,- million for legal defense fees, and these men were lucky, as theywere students out of rich families.

On the other side, what happens with the accuser, if it turns out nevertheless that such allegations were fabricated by a malicious woman because of her bad mood?

Harriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday. The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks. The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction. .....Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.

In US, false rape allegations are not really seen to be a crime, with the argument, they are 'rare' - But is a 'rare crime' not a crime?Such argument sounds like an excuse by feminists, but if a crime is rare or frequent is not relevant, it is still a crime.

Same in UK:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493352/Woman-falsely-cried-rape-EIGHT-times-spared-jail.htmlA woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail.Gemma Gregory, 28, accused seven different men over a six-year period.Former boyfriends were subjected to police questioning and DNA testing to clear their names.Her fantasy stories also wasted huge amounts of police time.

What said David? The conviction rate for rapists is so low? So tell me what should the judge do in such a case? To convict innocent men for crimes which never took place?

Again, and again, every day, but David is telling us, false rape allegations are so rare.

A teenager who cheated with her ex-boyfriend has been jailed for 12 months - for falsely claiming he raped her....When asked why she did it, she told police: 'Because I'd just had enough of him, because every time I got a boyfriend he still wanted sex with me and everything like that.'

1. "U.S. prosecutors have wide prosecutorial discretion, more than other developed countries"

U.S. prosecutors are also under the direction of the lead prosecutor, the District Attorney, who has to convince voters that he or she is "tough on crime." It's the "lock 'em up" mentality of U.S. prosecutors (and lawmakers) that explains why 2 million males are in U.S. prisons, a higher percentage of the population than in any other country. Not only is there a strong political incentive to indict, but also there is a major disadvantage to poorer defendants who have to rely on overburdened and under-aggressive public defenders.

2. "U.S. convictions are difficult to achieve because of the high burden of proof; beyond a reasonable doubt"

Convictions are also difficult to achieve when the jury sees through the accuser's bogus accusations. That's one reason why the conviction rate for rape in Europe is less than half that of the U.S. In Sweden, only 1 percent of all rape cases result in a conviction.

3. "Although false accusers are rarely charged with a crime, they are more often successfully sued"

And to you this is justice? If the defendant had been convicted of criminal charges, he would have gone to prison and probably been violently raped or otherwise assaulted. In my opinion, a fabricated criminal charge by a false rape accuser should absolutely result in a criminal charge as well as a civil suit against the false accuser, and this should occur more often than it currently does.

4. "Defendants in the U.S. don't have to prove innocence, but prosecutors have to prove guilt"

That's not always true. In some rape cases, the issue boils down to a completely subjective matter of the alleged victim's consent. Although it is not legally required of them, it is often necessary for defendants in rape cases to assert an "affirmative defense," i.e. proving that consent was obtained by the defendant, in order to have the strongest chances of acquittal. A strain of feminism known as "Legal Dominance Feminism" is trying to change the laws so that in rape cases, the definition of consent is radicalized.

Based on the above source, here is my summary of the various definitions of rape, from the non-radical to the (feminist-inspired) most radical:

1. Non-radical: Force overcoming all-out resistanceRape has occurred when force is used against the explicit objections and physical resistance by a rape victim.

2. Slightly radical: Non-compliance with verbal objectionsRape has occurred when the victim says "no" but otherwise doesn't resist or try to escape. Also known as date rape.

3. Radical: Lack of explicit verbal consentRape has occurred because the perpetrator didn't get the victim to explicitly agree to sex prior to the onset of sexual activity (i.e. the lack of a "yes" constitutes a "no").

4. Very radical: Lack of mental consentRape has occurred because the victim didn't consent in her mind. Provides the pretext for prosecutions based on retroactive non-consent.

5. "Even if an alleged rape victim's history is rendered inadmissible and considered irrelevant, defendants still have plenty of due process"

That's your subjective opinion, and I disagree with it. The jury should have all of the facts. If an accuser has a pattern of making false allegations of rape, in my opinion that should be made known to the jury. Also, I also believe that the more promiscuous a person is, and the more outrageously so, the more likely it will be for them to justify their behavior by claiming that it was all against their will. We saw that in the Hofstra case, where the false accuser engaged in group sex and called it rape in order to prevent her boyfriend from acknowledging her act of cheating. I personally disagree with laws that consider the motivations to falsely accuse -- and the related circumstances -- to somehow be irrelevant. It's all completely relevant in my view.

6. "@John Dias, you have absolutely no understanding of how the US legal system works, do you?"

Translation: I do not share your values or political beliefs, and therefore I must somehow be ignorant. Consider your premise rejected!

.....accused him of raping her 40 times throughout their two-and-a-half-year relationship.

He was arrested, held in a police cell and handcuffed as police searched his flat for evidence of his crime. But she retracted her allegation weeks later, and the officer investigating the claims described them as 'inconsistent' and 'not credible'.

Despite the lack of evidence, the incident remains on the Police National Computer thanks to a legal loophole, which campaigners say is blighting the lives of falsely accused men.Even if the 'victim' withdraws their allegation, it will show up under enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks that are undertaken regularly on people who apply for jobs with employers such as the NHS or schools. It will also prevent them from travelling to the United States.The boyfriend cannot be identified to protect his accuser's anonymity, but wants to make his case public.

I'm confused about your definition of a false allegation of rape. Do cases of mistaken identity fall under your definition of false allegations, or are you only referring to accusations that are maliciously false?

'Mistakes' happen frequently and suddenly a wrong person is the suspect. Without any bad intention of the victim.

This might happen out of various circumstances, it was nighttime, she saw him only a few seconds. etc. etc.

Again, something happened and the victim makes a mistake identifying a wrong person.

However, MRAs are talking about malicious women, who are reporting crimes which never took place, malicious women who are accusing totally innocent men for sex-crimes solely out of their bad mood.

I give you one example, so you will understand about what kind of women I am talking.

These 2 false rape allegations are a felony, links below, but these women are getting away with very lenient sentences and no talk about any compensation for the innocent male victim and their family members.

MRAs want to see these women in jail for a very long time, similar to the crime of rape.

What's wrong with that? For saying this I and many other MRAs are misogynists, anti-feminist trolls or what?

@Yohan, US criminal defendents have a constitutional right to a lawyer and, if they cannot afford the fees, the state pays. It is only in civil cases that a person may be left without the ability to get a lawyer, in criminal cases the defendent always has the right to one. Police are even required to inform those they arrest that they have the right to an attorney and that if they cannot afford one one will be provided to them at the state's expense (this is part of a standardized legal disclosure of rights called the Miranda Warning which is also Constitutionally required). The state pays for your lawyers and experts if you are accused of a crime and financially cannot afford to do so yourself. In US criminal cases, the prosecutor does not represent the victim, he represents the state. "Women claiming to be raped (whatever 'rape' might mean in USA) will get assistance free of charge" is not true insofar as the courts or healthcare systems go. The state or the 'people' are the prosecutor's client, not the victim. If a woman brings a civil case, she has to compensate her lawyer like any other civil plaintiff.

"In US, false rape allegations are not really seen to be a crime" False reporting of a crime is a crime under US law. Also, the low conviction rates you so tout are pretty damned good evidence that juries are not just taking every rape case and automatically finding the defendent guilty. There is far more bias against victims than against the accused in this system. Just look at Dias, who thinks that women who consensually have sex on more than one prior occasion cannot be raped and are automatically less credible.

"Anonymity for life. You think this is right?" The US legal system is set up so that the trial records, containing the full name of the victim, are public record. Often, gynecological results and explicit details of her rape are publicly available to anyone who goes into the courthouse (or library, depending on the area). There is no anonymity for any crime victim in the US whose case goes to court. So tell me, if victim anonymity drives high rates of accusation of rape, how come the lack of anonymity in the US system hasn't results in US accusation rates being much, much lower?

Let me say this again, though, that a lack of a conviction does not equal a false report. The high legal standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is set up so that more guilty walk free than innocents get falsely convicted. Also, when there is bias against the victim of a crime, convictions are lower. Black women who accuse white men of rape have their rapists convicted at a lower rater than white women who accuse white men of rape. Why? Not because black women lie more, but because juries are made up of people, some of whom are racist. Some jurors are also sexist. You know, people like Dias who think the idea that when your partner explicitly says 'no' and you keep going, it is radical to call that a rape.

[Quoting Yohan]: "In US, false rape allegations are not really seen to be a crime" [Answering Yohan]: "False reporting of a crime is a crime under US law."

U.S. law requires that criminal charges be brought by either a District Attorney or a grand jury. They are not automatic. If there is a strong cultural bias that discourages prosecuting false accusers, then they won't be prosecuted as often. Issuing an indictment is thus an act that is subject to political winds. Just because the law authorizes the prosecutor to indict, that alone does not guarantee an indictment against a false accuser by any stretch.

@DarkSideCat:

"Just look at Dias, who thinks that women who consensually have sex on more than one prior occasion cannot be raped and are automatically less credible."

You're telling one whopper of a lie! Just because I want the jury to have all of the available evidence that does not mean that I am saying that the evidence automatically disconfirms the possibility that a crime occurred.

@DarkSideCat:

"Some jurors are also sexist. You know, people like Dias who think the idea that when your partner explicitly says 'no' and you keep going, it is radical to call that a rape."

Where have I ever said this? Citation please! Otherwise please put on the Dunce Cap!

Black women who accuse white men of rape have their rapists convicted at a lower rater than white women who accuse white men of rape. Why?

Such a question is typical only for the USA. I do not know any other country, where the race of a person is playing such an influencial role.

Not because black women lie more, but because juries are made up of people, some of whom are racist.

What shall a judge/DA/police investigators ets. really do in a case like the Duke, where a black stripper is accusing plenty of white men?

Of course they will check for any evidence independent of the word of the accuser, but there is no evidence of a rape, more the opposite and the accuser is changing her story all the time. So what to do?

I got the impression so far about USA, that the juries are biased against the man regardless if white or black or Asian. Again the Duke case showed us worldwide, that the black female stripper got by far more public support than these white men.

Not to forget to mention, that this black stripper was never facing criminal charges for her lies. So how can you say, the juries etc. are biased against a black woman?

more guilty walk free than innocents get falsely convicted

You can say this about any crime, theft for example...

However indeed, there are plenty of MEN who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit.http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Never heard about a single woman who spent so much time in jail, despite she was innocent...I do not know even one.

But for sure if the accused person is a female, she gets automatically more lenient sentences solely out of her gender...

http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2870.htmlDo You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence Because You Are a Woman? An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines

@Yohan, funny that you couldn't find one, because here's what three seconds and a search for the word woman found from the innocence project http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Women_and_Innocence_Building_a_Network.php Reading and understanding your own sources helps. Men commit a much higher percentage of violent crimes in the US (as well as a much higher percentage of other crimes as well), so they often make up a majority in any discussion about post-conviction rights, not because they are falsely convicted at higher rates, the sheer difference in number of cases is enough.

There is also well documented bias against black defendents in generally. The idea that jury would never have racial bias in a US trial is flat out absurd.

"What protections and or laws have MRAs tried to legislate for, not say they agree with, or claim they would be for, but ACTUALLY pushed for in order to make sure these rapists are punished for their crimes?"

More harsh and consistent consequences for proven, malicious false rape accusers. No light slaps on the hands, no walking away with guilty expressions and nothing more, but actual punishment... Consequences.

The focus on convicting "proven" false accusers should in no way deter true victims from coming forward. But it should deter the false accusers, which should leave those who are truly victims appearing even more credible. In addition, this would result in a higher conviction rate, as less false allegations would find it's way to courts to subsequently be dismissed (AKA, non-convictions). This is true, regardless of the actual number of false allegations going to trial, unless it truly is 0% as some people wish to believe (IE, those saying that all cases without convictions are actually real, honest to goodness rapes that let the rapist walk free)

"Why do MRAs seem to think that it is okay that most rapes go unpunished?"

Because we don't actually believe that is the case.

DarkSideCat Said: "Let me say this again, though, that a lack of a conviction does not equal a false report."

But at the same time, a lack of conviction also doesn't equal a rapist walking free. And this is the stand many feminists are taking. Both MRA's and feminists are drawing in those non-convictions as evidence of their side, and the truth is, those non-convictions are completely unknown (though, it is my perception that it is harder to prove a false accusation is actually maliciously false (and thus a crime of false reporting), then it is to fail to prosecute an actual rapist, provided the rape was reported soon enough. Therefor, more false allegations go unidentified then rapists go free). They quite possibly do represent, in part, both arguments, though in what proportions we can not know (and what proportion represent mistaken identification or questionable interpretations of rape itself (Assange case))

I am someone who was falsely accused of sexual assault once. I believe that people are far to quick to dismiss men and the pain that they go through because they have been falsely accused. But this:

"2. Slightly radical: Non-compliance with verbal objectionsRape has occurred when the victim says "no" but otherwise doesn't resist or try to escape. Also known as date rape."

... makes you an idiot. If the victim says no, it is rape. Period. You cannot demand that people react to sexual violence in the same way. Some people's natural reaction to an assault will be to fight back. Other people will just shut down.

If a woman tells you no, stop touching her and go away. There is nothing even the least bit radical about that.

"3. Radical: Lack of explicit verbal consentRape has occurred because the perpetrator didn't get the victim to explicitly agree to sex prior to the onset of sexual activity (i.e. the lack of a "yes" constitutes a "no")."

Again, not radical. Your partner should always explicitly agree to sexual activity. If she does not, it is rape. Period. Now, that explicit agreement need not be verbal but it needs to be in some form that is clear. If you have any doubt, don't whip it out.

ShareThis

About We Hunted the Mammoth

Ah, misogyny! I track down some of the most egregious and/or entertaining examples of man-boobery online (and sometimes off). I find a lot of it on Men's Rights and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) sites. Sometimes I mock. TRIGGER WARNING: I quote some pretty extreme misogyny here; also, the comments section is pretty much unfiltered.

I've been writing on topics ranging from gender and culture to money and
technology for more than twenty years, mostly as a freelancer.

Starting in the late 1990s, I covered tech and investing, at first for Newsday and the now-defunct Upside magazine, then as a staff writer at Money magazine. More recently, I blogged on money and business for Time.com.